Table 1.

Key considerations for future regulation

Precautionary Component	Addressing/Incorporating:
Culture	The tikanga perspective, relative to the scientific, economic and mainstream cultures – managing cultural conflicts, identifying ambiguities, clarifying common and disparate objectives. What are the range of potential benefits and risks?
Context	What makes one genomic project or approach more ‘valid’ than another? Why is a particular project relevant/critical/etc. at a given point in time? Why (or why not) would gene technologies be considered?
Consequence	Identification of a continuum of reasonably anticipated outcomes (for monitoring). How to accommodate (or ‘predict’) unpredictable outcomes? What outcomes are/are not acceptable?
Certainty	From the kaitiakitanga perspective – what values are employed in determining how to quantify/qualify outcomes? What uncertainties exist? What information is required to provide confidence in decision-making?
Control	Who makes what decisions, when? Across-time responsive decision-making should replace initial-stage, ‘consultation’-based project sign-off. How are different values balanced/mediated?
Cost	What level of investment is required to integrate gene-related technologies into business operations and where to go to find this out?
Capacity & Capability	Community-level capability enables ‘authority’ in decision-making and offsets confidence issues around ‘legitimacy of science’. Requirement for ‘community’ time and expertise to attract same funding as ‘government’, leading to improved capacity and consolidation of capability.
Compromise	Acknowledgement of the dynamic nature of decision-making and the lack of certainty about the consequences of gene editing. What non-genomic alternatives exist?